Legal News

The Bar Standards Board and Ilex Professional Standards are seeking expressions of interest from research organisations with the expertise to undertake an independent review of advocacy within the Youth Courts in England and Wales.

The aim of the review is to identify and examine the skills, knowledge, and attributes needed for youth court advocates to work effectively. The outcome will be an evidence base from which the two regulators can then identify any existing risks within youth court advocacy, and establish what, if any, regulatory action needs to be taken.

The review follows the publication of the final report of the Independent Parliamentarians’ Inquiry into the Operation and Effectiveness of the Youth Court, chaired by Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC.

The inquiry made a number of key recommendations, including one that “…all legal practitioners representing children at the police station and practising in youth proceedings be accredited to do so”.

The House of Commons Justice Committee has begun an inquiry into manorial rights following a spate of applications to register remaining rights prior to the deadline of 13 October 2013.

According to the background to the inquiry, the Land Registry describes manorial rights as rights which were retained by lords of the manor when land became freehold. They can include rights to mines and some minerals, sporting rights such as hunting, shooting and fishing, and rights to hold fairs and markets.

Those rights were specifically preserved in 1926 when other aspects of the manorial system were abolished; however, following changes introduced by the Land Registration Act 2002 they lost their overriding status in relation to properties if they were not protected by being registered before last October’s deadline.

The Law Commission is recommending that a new online service should be established to help journalists and publishers reporting criminal trials discover whether reporting restrictions are in force and, if so, why. The service would be open to all publishers, from large media organisations to individual bloggers.

To protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the judge has the power to order that specific information is not disclosed to the jury. In exceptional circumstances, to prevent the jury from discovering that information in the media, the judge can impose reporting restrictions, postponing publication until the end of the trial and sometimes longer.

At the moment, there is no formal system for notifying potential publishers that a restriction is in force or why, but publishers who breach a restriction risk being prosecuted for contempt of court.

The Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee has said it is not convinced that the case has been made to abolish the requirement for corroboration in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. On balance it has recommended that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice considers removing the provisions, according to its Stage 1 report, published on 6 February. The Justice Committee has noted that the Cabinet Secretary has undertaken to instigate a review to consider additional safeguards, but has stated that it requires more detailed information.

In a statement issued on 6 February, the Committee says: “The Justice Committee agreed that, if the general requirement for the removal of corroboration continues to be considered, this should only happen after an independent review of what other reforms may be needed to ensure that the criminal justice system as a whole contains appropriate checks and balances.”

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has approved applications from ILEX Professional Standards (IPS) to regulate Chartered Legal Executives exercising litigation and related rights of audience independently, as well as new rules for regulating immigration advisers. It follows approval for IPS to regulate independent probate and conveyancing practice rights.

The suite of applications was submitted by IPS in March 2013 on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx). Their approval recognises the parity between CILEx members and other legal professionals, as well as IPS’s capability to regulate new areas.